new V12 license fees

[wdlschumi]

Hi everybody,

my name is Markus and I digitalize the Hofbraeuhaus in Munich.
Today I noticed, that Veeam wants to have extra money for V12 file to tape backups, the basics for min. 35 years.
For me, this is only a decision of making money very fast for the same feature.
I cannot accept these changes because I have min. 150TB files to backup to tape.

In Europe, there are many small customers, not like US with many big ones.
Please take a look inside your statistics, who pays your money every month.
If you do not want small customers, please tell me.

Due to this change, I only can search for another backup software - I will not pay more!
During the last years your price grows and grows with new license fees for sockets or VMs, but now I am finished with these fees.
There is no possibility to pay more for a backup software without AI or special differences to other solutions.
There are many other companies, that want to see their products inside Hofbraeuhaus.

During the month, there are many people with me, that want to know about digitalization of gastro prozesses.
I can show them, but now I will tell them, "do not use Veeam software" for backups.


File backup to tape is a basic feature and should not be paid extra!

Greeting from Germany
Markus


I hope, that a Veeam responsible persoan reads this.

[Gostev]

Hello, Markus

I recommend you contact our sales to discuss your specific situation, since existing File to Tape users are eligible for a significant discount.

Please appreciate that Veeam as a for-profit business, and we make money (in particular to pay R&D their salaries) for making copies of production data to another media. There's absolutely no reason why Veeam as a business should give away the ability to protect 150TB of important production data at no cost, and moreover be losing its own money on providing technical support for this functionality. We have always been charging for enterprise-level file backup to disk, so why should it be any different when backing up files to tape instead? It's just a different media.

You're stating the V12 functionality is "the same feature" however it is not. It's not even close. This functionality was free before because the engine was designed for customer to copy image-level VMware backups to tape, as such we did not charge for it (not to double-dip) knowing it would not scale to a large number of files anyway... millions at best. However, our customers have pushed us for scalable, enterprise-grade file backup engine and it was completely re-written in V12 to scale to billion files while adding additional features purpose-built for file-level backup and recovery in enterprise environments, such as integrations with enterprise NAS filers. This is the reason why V12 now requires to license the protection of large production data sets. Having said that, backing up small file shares remains free because we don't charge for the first 500GB of protected data per each protected file share (this is to answer your question if we care about small customers).

Note that we did think about situations like yours, which is why we have a heavy discount system in place for existing "legacy" File to Tape users who might be impacted by this change. However, if you're convinced that enterprise backup for 150TB of production data, including 24/7 support, should be given away by Veeam for free and are unwilling to pay even the discounted price, then I'm afraid you will indeed need to look for another file backup software from a vendor who is willing to give away similar functionality and provide technical support to you completely free of charge.

Thank you for understanding!

[vmtech123]

Hey Gostev.

Happy I noticed this as I was just doing some tests and noticed file to tape didn't seem to use VUL's. but I haven't upgraded to 12 yet

My question is the following.

Is it the total amount of data on tapes, or the size of the share that decides how many VUL's.

I have retention of 50,75 and 100 years for a lot of data. We will NEVER need to access much of it, but I need to keep it. I understand paying something, but for a PB of old useless data, that is going to be extreme. I'd be better to have a SAN "accidently" fail one day for the historic data and save millions long term.

If it is the data on tapes I am not able to use this, if it is the share, what if I were to copy data to the share, move it to tape, then delete off the share. This is cold archive data that just needs to be somewhere.

I assume it is data on tape, but if there is anyway I can get Veeam to work for this purpose it is going to make a big influence on our archiving solution. Backups Veeam is perfect however so we will keep using it for that.

[Gostev]

Hello, it's the size of the protected file share of course. We never licensed anything other than the source, and it's a very logical model if you think about it. Oversimplified, our costs are R&D salaries to create and maintain software that lets you make copies of your production data, as well as Support salaries to be able to assist you in case of issues creating said copies. However, how long you are going to store those copies is none of our business, as this does not affect our costs in any way. Thanks!

[Butha]

Just adding my 2 cents..

The tables for comparing feature sets for different versions is not very clear - especially when you are an existing Enterprise customer using socket licensing - and there are now also VUL tables to compare, as well as a product name change - but only applicable to VUL customers (" Veeam Data Platform"). It seems all other "Tape related" features are included, just not files to tape. (Small little * which takes you to another page should you bother to follow the links). In the release notes 1 single sentence mentioning the change only. Perhaps it was required to highlight a LOT more clearly that any customer, regardless of being on the existing TOP tier (Ent+) that uses tape needs to be absolutely aware of a big potential impact. There is so much information on a new launch, most people do not read through hundreds of pages of documentation - so will surely be missed by many. (Yes - I'm one of those old school guys who actually spend a few days reading through release notes, upgrade guides etc etc BEFORE doing it - so I was aware of this). One thing also mentioned in the documentation is that VBR, VBK files do not count towards a total requiring a license - maybe it's also not widely known.

We don't use it to protect large file shares (like Samba, Nas etc), but we do have a small share on a physical tape server where an Oracle team "dumps" some monthly files, and the "file to tape" is purely an additional safety thing to have a 3rd copy on physical media off site. The solution is easy for our case - build a small vm, add a share and let them write the files there. Usual procedure to include this VM into the monthly tape jobs will solve it (if I understand the terms correctly where these vbr/vbk files will not require capacity license for File to Tape).

I think from reading the OP's post - the bigger issue is that File to Tape is ONLY available as a VUL option - as far as I could find out you cannot have your traditional socket license co-exist with a VUL option "only" for File to Tape. This now becomes another socket/VUL debate and I'm sure both sides agree is some instances VUL license works out significantly more expensive (ours as an example) - even though this seems to be for a smaller percentage of customers only. We have 700+ days of maintenance left and are very happy to stay on socket licenses as long as we are allowed to for our use case - even with lots of pressure from the reseller trying to get us to migrate. (lots of carrots - discounts etc - still the figures and functionality in how we use the product doesn't warrant changing)

Also - for a long time " tape" was seen as something arbitrary - so existing Enterprise and Enterprise+ customers never had to pay extra for it - so I can understand both sides of the argument.

If my understanding of socket/VUL for file to tape is wrong - and we are able to JUST add a VUL capacity tier for file to tape - it might be a consideration. Technically I'd be worried if 150TB+ production data exists ONLY in file format - no immutable copy - no snapshot based backups, no replication etc - unsure of the technical details so it might be impossible for the OP - but perhaps it's an opportunity to also migrate these file-shares to something new for other reasons.

[Technogod]

Revert back to V11. Problem solved.

[svallarian]

We never licensed anything other than the source

I'm taking this a bit out of context, but i did have veeam v11 count a 200 day old backup that was made by veeam 9.5 (from a VM that was decommissioned) and tried to report is as something I needed to be licensed for. I didn't apprecate it at all, so that's why i don't enable pulse since i have to baby-sit the software.

[darcon]

Revert back to V11. Problem solved.

That's fine for now, but eventually people will have to upgrade when the next ESXi/HyperV change breaks something. Of course, you could just not update your hypervisors too, but that's not very smart these days. We are small and didn't have an issue with the previous FTT tape engine. So, we are being forced to pay for improvements that only companies with large amounts of FTT files will benefit from. In our case, we're only talking about 1.5-2TB of archive data. I'll probably just end up setting up an iSCSI connection and add it to a VM to get around this, just annoying for such a small amount of data.

Also, are the discounts to previous FTT users permanent? Or just for x number of years?

[Gostev]

I think from reading the OP's post - the bigger issue is that File to Tape is ONLY available as a VUL option

Luckily, this is not so please see my response here, this applies to all file backup jobs regardless of the target (disk or tape).

And yes, this option can be added to any Veeam license at all.

[Gostev]

We are small and didn't have an issue with the previous FTT tape engine. So, we are being forced to pay for improvements that only companies with large amounts of FTT files will benefit from. In our case, we're only talking about 1.5-2TB of archive data.

For small businesses, Veeam Essentials package offers NAS backup at USD 100 per TB (that's MSRP) if I am not mistaken, so for your data size costs will be negligible.

Yes, it is not free - but something tells me OP's fine German beer factory is also not giving away free beers permanently, not even small portions... which I guess is easy for many of us to relate to

[m.novelli]

I call it "Veeam tax" just like Microsoft tax on Office 365 / Azure and Amazon Tax on AWS or XXX Tax when you have any subscription / maintenance active for something.

Big Tech Company just try to milk more and more end customer to maintain double digit revenue and profit growth. They look for infinite growth in a finite world leaving to reseller a narrow margin: sooner or later it will come to an end

My customer are using the same feature set of Veeam v9 or v10 but pay more more every year. I'm happy to not use new exotic features so I'll be able to switch to something cheaper in future. Regarding VMware I'm still using the same feature set as v.5 , so in future I'll be able to switch to some cheap hypervisor / backup solution, for SMB market they are just a commodity in the 2023 era, not something to pay as a Formula 1 Red Bull or Ferrari

Marco

[Gerald]

I don't think it's a problem because IMHO for NAS systems you should use rsync/ZFS/BTRFS snapshots and not use Veeam.

But the pricing is really weird. I checked the Veeam price calculator:
- Backup of 1 Server and 9VMs: 744,72€
- Backup of 1 NAS with about 1200€ of drives in it (50TB net storage, 4x18TB RAID5): 4,654€

So if you install Veeam on a Linux Server with 50TB storage and back it up from the commandline, it costs you 74€/year (1/10th of the license). If you put the 50TB on a NAS and let a separate machine back it up you need to pay 62x more. That seems fair

[Gostev]

Image-level backup cannot possibly be compared with file-level backup in terms of functionality and backup storage efficiency. If you are happy with image-level backup for your NAS, then by all means you should just use it at a cost of 1 license regardless of the NAS size! Or you could take it even further to the "image-level extreme" and do NDMP dumps, which is completely free with Veeam. Some customers like to have this as a "last resort" type of backup, in addition to regular backups.

[Motte]

I have to say how Veeam rips off its existing customers with the new VUL license or File2Tape function and the new strong pricing policy.
We have been an "Enterprise Plus Socket License" customer for years and have been using File2Tape backup for a long time.
We backup more than 150 TB of multiple SMB shares from a Synology and QNAP NAS to LTO8 tapes as an additional third copy/archive.
Snapshots and replication are also activated on the NAS systems. This has been going very well for years with Veeam V10/V11.
The fact that we now need more 240 VUL licenses with the Veeam V12 and have to pay around €70,000 for them is out of proportion and also makes no commercial sense.
It's really annoying and I think it's a rip off. The accounting unit of 500 GB steps is also a joke and not up to date at all...
It is also difficult to understand that this function was free in V10/11 and now in Veeam V12 suddenly exceeds the price range so much...

Dear Veeam Team, I love your products but this is really a real joke.
FYI we've restored yesterday our environment to Veeam V11….

Best Regards,
Christian

[Gostev]

we now need more 240 VUL licenses with the Veeam V12 and have to pay around €70,000 for them is out of proportion and also makes no commercial sense

This is simply not true, you may want to actually read this thread before contributing. As I have already mentioned above:
1. Existing File to Tape customers are eligible for significant discounts, so it makes absolutely no sense to quote MSRP.
2. VUL is not the best licensing option for large file shares to start with, capacity-based licensing is cheaper (up to a few times depending on the volume).

It is also difficult to understand that this function was free in V10/11 and now in Veeam V12 suddenly exceeds the price range so much...

This is also explained in my very first response above.

[Motte]

What exactly is the reason that the File2Tape function in the V12 justifies the high surcharge? But please explain me why as a loyal maintenance customer, I have to pay now significantly more for the "File2Tape" function, it was included in the previous version V10/11. We only backup an "SMB" NAS share on LTO8 tapes as an archive.

[Gostev]

I've explained this in the greatest of details in my first reply to this topic and I have really nothing to add to that post.

[Motte]

Maybe there could have been a different license solution, e.g. leaving the File2Tape function as it was in V10/11 and then adding it as a new feature in V12 and then having the choice as a customer to buy these new extra features.

[Gostev]

We cannot afford this from R&D perspective, as this means maintaining and supporting two separate tunnels (both the old and the new file-to-tape engines). Instead, Veeam chose to make the new engine available to existing customers at a very low price (up to 100% discount for the first year as far as I know).

[Motte]

That's sounds good , it's a step in the right direction and will probably pleasure the maintenance customers.
However, my personal opinion is still that tape backup should become a cost-neutral standard in Veeam .

[aceit]

I call it "Veeam tax" just like Microsoft tax on Office 365 / Azure and Amazon Tax on AWS or XXX Tax when you have any subscription / maintenance active for something.

Big Tech Company just try to milk more and more end customer to maintain double digit revenue and profit growth. They look for infinite growth in a finite world leaving to reseller a narrow margin: sooner or later it will come to an end

My customer are using the same feature set of Veeam v9 or v10 but pay more more every year. I'm happy to not use new exotic features so I'll be able to switch to something cheaper in future. Regarding VMware I'm still using the same feature set as v.5 , so in future I'll be able to switch to some cheap hypervisor / backup solution, for SMB market they are just a commodity in the 2023 era, not something to pay as a Formula 1 Red Bull or Ferrari

Marco

That's now normality in many fields.... Take in account that, from what I see, a lot of licensing changes and contortions came after Veeam was acquired by the venture capital/private equity firm... it's normal, and seen many times, that, when a pure tech companies get bought by investment firms, usually such firms that just do what they do best, they try to optimize and growth profit and margins... and having a lot of telemetry and knowing out the functionalities are used in the field, it's "easy" to know the impact of some changes and forecast in term of profit (for the investors and stakeholders).... what do you want, paying the some maintenance each year forever for ever increasing data? ; ) ; P : D

[Gostev]

@aceit to be fair to the private equity firm behind Veeam, all the "licensing changes and contortions" were planned and worked on well before a [very unexpected] acquisition.

The reality is, introducing new licensing approaches like Veeam Universal License (VUL) can't possibly be done overnight, this requires a major platform release vehicle due to touching so many products. And even before R&D starts the implementation, which is when us PMs get engaged, it takes the executive team some months to discuss and approve the whole concept of the new licensing. I just did a search in my Outlook and first mentions of the new licensing requirements date back to 2018! So basically 2 years prior to the acquisition, the Veeam management already a plan to gradually replace Socket-based licensing with VUL.

Or take the feature discussed in this topic, NAS backup. Its V1 was shipped even before Veeam was acquired, meaning all planning around its Licensing was done 2 years prior, during the design phase of this feature. Moreover, this feature was shipped with NAS protection costing 2x more than it is now, so one could argue the situation is completely the opposite: the private equity firm acquisition resulted in the price dropping 2x in the next major release following the acquisition

You're correct though that there are Vulture VCs that basically do what you say, but there are also Growth Phase VCs like Insight who do not. I can say that so far I've been extremely happy about Insight as they more or less "left us alone" and let our good old executive team to continue run the company as if nothing happened... which is also the only reason why I'm still here. I guess this was partially because we kept growing just like before the acquisition, giving Insight no reasons to interfere in any way.

Honestly, my only real worry is the current global economy situation, how it may affect our 2023 sales results and in turn the status quo. Luckily for us, we just shipped V12 platform update, which should help our results somewhat of course. Plus, our "new" CEO (who joined last year) is really putting a lot of focus on fixing some not-so-customer-friendly decisions which I personally hated... just give him some time, he's really good and very customer-focused.

[Technogod]

Wow, I never thought Veeam would sell out to Pirate Equity.

[Gostev]

The fact that you did not even notice this happening over 2 years ago also says a lot though

[stewsie]

Hi

Does this file to tape backup affect NDMP tape backups? That is still effectively file to tape. I had also seen somewhere that when you upgrade to v12 the file to tape function will work for a limited amount of time. Does anyone know where that is mentioned as I cannot find it now.

Thanks

[Dima P.]

Does this file to tape backup affect NDMP tape backups?

NDMP backup does not consume instances but requires a valid B&R license.

I had also seen somewhere that when you upgrade to v12 the file to tape function will work for a limited amount of time. Does anyone know where that is mentioned as I cannot find it now

First tree months after the upgrade to v12 all file to tape jobs will not consume instances but will notify you about total consumption to make the needed arrangements around your current license. More details on license consumption is in this How-To article: Instance Consumption for NAS Backup and File to Tape Jobs

[stewsie]

NDMP backup does not consume instances but requires a valid B&R license.

I am just staring the upgrade from 12.0 to 12.1 and during the Configuration check I am now warned about File to tape is now licenced and provides a list of all the NDMP tape jobs. Have Veeam now changed this so we do need to licence NDMP tape jobs?

Thanks

[stewsie]

I found another forum post

veeam-backup-replication-f2/v12-1-upgra ... 91301.html

[strivoli]

Today I noticed, that Veeam wants to have extra money for V12 file to tape backups, the basics for min. 35 years.
For me, this is only a decision of making money very fast for the same feature.
I cannot accept these changes because I have min. 150TB files to backup to tape.

Due to this change, I only can search for another backup software - I will not pay more!
During the last years your price grows and grows with new license fees for sockets or VMs, but now I am finished with these fees.

I totally agree with you. I was about to add a new topic when I found yours that matches my feelings. I'm happy for those of you that can afford a cost increase in paid Veeam Licensing but I can't. I'm searching for an alternative and hope to leave Veeam soon and forever. Leaving Customers don't came back again.